Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Nov;108(5):815-821.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.1168. Epub 2017 Sep 12.

Assessing the use of assisted reproductive technology in the United States by non-United States residents

Affiliations

Assessing the use of assisted reproductive technology in the United States by non-United States residents

Aaron D Levine et al. Fertil Steril. 2017 Nov.

Abstract

Objective: To study cross-border reproductive care (CBRC) by assessing the frequency and nature of assisted reproductive technology (ART) care that non-U.S. residents receive in the United States.

Design: Retrospective study of ART cycles reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National ART Surveillance System (NASS) from 2006 to 2013.

Setting: Private and academic ART clinics.

Patient(s): Patients who participated in ART cycles in the United States from 2006 to 2013.

Intervention(s): None.

Main outcome measure(s): Frequency and trend of ART use in the U.S. by non-U.S. residents, countries of residence for non-U.S. residents, differences by residence status for specific ART treatments received, and the outcomes of these ART cycles.

Result(s): A total of 1,271,775 ART cycles were reported to NASS from 2006 to 2013. The percentage of ART cycles performed for non-U.S. residents increased from 1.2% (n = 1,683) in 2006 to 2.8% (n = 5,381) in 2013 (P<.001), with treatment delivered to residents of 147 countries. Compared with resident cycles, non-U.S. resident cycles had higher use of oocyte donation (10.6% vs. 42.6%), gestational carriers (1.6% vs. 12.4%), and preimplantation genetic diagnosis or screening (5.3% vs. 19.1%). U.S. resident and non-U.S. resident cycles had similar embryo transfer and multiple birth rates.

Conclusion(s): This analysis showed that non-U.S. resident cycles accounted for a growing share of all U.S. ART cycles and made higher use of specialized treatment techniques. This study provides important baseline data on CBRC in the U.S. and may also prove to be useful to organizations interested in improving access to fertility treatments.

Keywords: Assisted reproductive technology; cross-border reproductive care; gestational carriers; oocyte donation; preimplantation genetic diagnosis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sunderam S, Kissin DM, Crawford SB, Folger SG, Jamieson DJ, Warner L, et al. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States, 2013. MMWR Surveill Summ 2015;64:1–25. - PubMed
    1. Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. The global landscape of cross-border reproductive care: twenty key findings for the new millennium. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2012;24:158–63. - PubMed
    1. Ethics Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Cross-border reproductive care: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2013;100: 645–50. - PubMed
    1. Cohen IG. Patients with passports: medical tourism, law and ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2014.
    1. Spar D. Reproductive tourism and the regulatory map. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:531–3. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources